Your recovery of a "check and balance" would exist only on paper. In practice, it would be a fantasy. How would you have addressed the corruption going on in the Senate which snowballed throughout the latter half of the 19th century into the 20th ? What about the situations that occurred in Delaware which kept that state from even sending members to DC ?
"My Side? I am only speaking for myself and only making a constitutional argument, I don't have an ideological premise other than that."
Yes, your side. The small group of FReepers floating this same anti-17th flight of fancy, but refuse to deal with the reality of what that would entail today were it to occur. If you have an idea or notion about something and trot it out, you should consider what it would lead to. Now I'm sure you believe it would do all these wonderful things, but you're fooling yourself, because you're not weighing it against the political realities of the present time. As I tell the anti-17thers, what you want is a restoration of a Senate elected in 1789. Consider the realities of those that were participating in the political process then vs. now (or even vs the 1910s). In order to remotely restore a Senate that fits your notions of what it should be, you'd have to drastically alter the people participating in the electoral process. Personally, I don't think THAT would be a bad idea.
"You are the one making wild speculations as to the make up of the Senate, regardless have you looked at the make up of the Senate now?"
I'm not making wild speculations, I'm giving specific names based on the current dynamics and reality. You, however, have not given me any names (which is another problem with your side -- your Senators are nameless, fictional individuals that don't exist in our reality).
"Can you honestly make a claim that they aren't puppets or puppeteers because they are directly elected? Could they possible spend more time trying to get more pork for their states? Repealing something that ignored a basic concept of the constitution in favor of some supposed harm that might be done, doesn't address the harm that has already been done, and that harm is historically obvious."
My reply remains the same, yes, they can and will be worse. Every member now could be removed by being voted out of office by the people. You remove that option completely by repeal of the 17th, and in those states with heavily gerrymandered majorities (Dem), you guarantee the worst of the worst a job for perpetuity. You're empowering the political class.
"Pelosi, Boxer, Reid etc. could be worse? Sorry I beg to differ, the 17th amendment has created a far worse situation than we were ever in previously. Repealing it would bring back a vital check and balance and certainly doesn't empower Senators beyond the original intent of the constitution."
Pelosi is not a member of the Senate, but I'll tell you right now that she would easily make the transition, because with a hyper-Dem legislature in California, cancers like her would float to the top. Reid would also not have to worry, because the Dems have had a combined majority in the NV legislature for many years. Fortunately, the voters of NV can bypass that gerrymandered majority and elect Republicans.
"What the founding father intended was that the states have representation in congress and the 17th broke that invalidating the entire concept of congress."
Nope. It was the Senators that broke it. When their own personal agendas and power-seeking overtook their sense of duty to representing and protecting their state interests against growing federal encroachment, they destroyed what the Founding Fathers intended. It was already broke by the Civil War.
"You think they would really approve of that? If Thomas Jefferson's ghost appeared and asked "why would you even keep the senate if you were going to directly elect them, doesn't that make it just like the house? What about apportionment which was an important part of representation? Regardless Sir, what did your muddling get you? What are the fruits of your labors"" would you rethink your plainly broken axioms? For all of your histrionics about a "corrupt and decayed" situation, the 17th amendment was really just power play to increase the power of the Federal government at the expense of the States. As a result, 100 years later we are quickly becoming a police state, and our Senate is a cesspool of scum never even imagined in 1913."
My histrionics ? You cannot get back what was broken long before the 17th unless you are prepared to fundamentally transform and return the country to what it was 200 years ago and allowing only that certain class of individuals to participate in the decisionmaking process.
"If nothing else this should show anyone that the founders knew what they were doing and the 17th was a monumental blunder."
The blunder was not seeing men corrupting the system early on long before the 17th was on the horizon. That thing about power corrupting, y'know...
It would exist in observable reality. The Senate would be appointed by the state. The House would represent the people. That IS a very real check and balance, not a fantasy, regardless if you agree or not. Your continuous claims to corruption of the Senate before the 17th amendment compared to today is completely erroneous and absurd. It is hard to recall a worse den of thieves that have been directly elected to the Senate (or congress) then what we have now, and it certainly didn't exist prior to 1913. As to your horrible "situation" of Delaware not sending a delegation to the Senate do you really think the world is going to end if some state can't get it's act together enough to send members? It's their representation, it's up to them to send them or not. Regardless it rarely happened, although it is constantly held up as a shining example of why we "had" to get rid of state representation although it makes absolutely no sense at all.
Yes, your side. The small group of FReepers floating this same anti-17th flight of fancy, but refuse to deal with the reality of what that would entail today were it to occur. If you have an idea or notion about something and trot it out, you should consider what it would lead to. Now I'm sure you believe it would do all these wonderful things, but you're fooling yourself, because you're not weighing it against the political realities of the present time. As I tell the anti-17thers, what you want is a restoration of a Senate elected in 1789. Consider the realities of those that were participating in the political process then vs. now (or even vs the 1910s). In order to remotely restore a Senate that fits your notions of what it should be, you'd have to drastically alter the people participating in the electoral process. Personally, I don't think THAT would be a bad idea.
Flight of fancy? The 17th amendment has altered the republic for the worse and it completely changed the concept of congress to something completely irrational and not in step with the rest of the constitution. Do you really think you can rationalize that our nation is better off now than in 1913? Any speculation about who the states would or would not send to the senate is hypothetical, however, the republican party would have controlled the senate more often than it has historically, and it would be controlling it now based on pure numbers. Regardless your characterization of my intent is incorrect. While it would be nice to have a pure as driven snow, selfless Senate filled with genius statesmen, that isn't a rational desire. My intent is restore reason to the concept of congress by restoring representation to the states, and putting back in place a real check and balance to the ever increasing power of the federal government.
Any rational person with a knowledge of the constitution and intent of the founder wouldn't support the 17th amendment.
I'm not making wild speculations, I'm giving specific names based on the current dynamics and reality. You, however, have not given me any names (which is another problem with your side -- your Senators are nameless, fictional individuals that don't exist in our reality).
You are making wild speculation. You don't know enough about every state legislature to know who would and would be sent. That you think you do demonstrates your irrationality. Can I give names? Of course I can't as it's unknowable but if I wanted to simply makes some names up they would be just as plausible as yours.
My reply remains the same, yes, they can and will be worse. Every member now could be removed by being voted out of office by the people. You remove that option completely by repeal of the 17th, and in those states with heavily gerrymandered majorities (Dem), you guarantee the worst of the worst a job for perpetuity. You're empowering the political class.>br>
Just like any member might not be sent back by the State legislature. The legislature didn't appoint Senetors for life after all...unlike the current incumbency we are seeing in the Senate now. Cdertainly you aren't suggesting that prior to 1913 people held Senate office longer Senators after the 17th amendment. That isn't historically accurate at all. Further gerrymandering applies just as much if not more to direct elections.
Pelosi is not a member of the Senate, but I'll tell you right now that she would easily make the transition, because with a hyper-Dem legislature in California, cancers like her would float to the top. Reid would also not have to worry, because the Dems have had a combined majority in the NV legislature for many years. Fortunately, the voters of NV can bypass that gerrymandered majority and elect Republicans.
Pelosi is a member of the house that is elected the same way as Senators and is as dirty as anyone that has ever held office. Reid has lied, bribed, taken kick backs, and overtly cheated at elections. One can go on and on about the scum that fills congress and it makes the pre-17th amendment congress look like children that occasionally stole an extra cookie from the cookie jar. Could NV directly elect a senator that isn't a Democrat? Sure. Will it? Hell no, and that is a very important point. If a state leans Democrat then it's representation can be Democrat. My desire isn't that anyone of any party not be able to elect or appoint who it wants. My point is that without the state having representation you might as well just have a house or representatives and call it a day.
Nope. It was the Senators that broke it. When their own personal agendas and power-seeking overtook their sense of duty to representing and protecting their state interests against growing federal encroachment, they destroyed what the Founding Fathers intended. It was already broke by the Civil War.
BS. It was "progressive" media like Hearst and Politicians like Roosevelt making a mountain over molehills that made the 17th amendment possible, it was a jaded perversion of our constitution, that fundamentally altered balance of power between the Fed and the States. Not to mention the direct contravention of article V of the Constitution.
My histrionics ? You cannot get back what was broken long before the 17th unless you are prepared to fundamentally transform and return the country to what it was 200 years ago and allowing only that certain class of individuals to participate in the decision making process.
Repealing the 17th amendment is good enough start.
The blunder was not seeing men corrupting the system early on long before the 17th was on the horizon. That thing about power corrupting, y'know...
The corruption then doesn't hold a candle to the corruption now, so as the 17th was a monumental failure let's get rid of it.